Truth & consequences: Investigators' findings not always popular

Investigators bold enough to take on corruption in San Bernardino County have themselves seldom escaped controversy.

Some have been criticized by the same leaders who hired them. For others, the stakes have been even higher.

Former District Attorney Dennis Stout, 61, says his political career was upended in large part because he lost support from power brokers when he went after corrupt county officials.

He sees a distinct pattern of county officials bashing the people they commission to clean up corruption.

"It's not just the way these investigators are attacked, it's the politics of this county," Stout said. "It's a bloody knife fight."

Stout prosecuted former Supervisor Jerry Eaves on bribery charges before the case was handed over to the state Attorney General's Office when it was discovered that Stout and two of his top aides discussed their investigation into Eaves with one of his political foes.

The District Attorney's Office was cleared of acting illegally, but Stout bowed out of a 2002 re-election bid when he fell behind his opponent, then-Deputy District Attorney Michael Ramos.

The scandal surrounding the Eaves investigation and a wrongful termination lawsuit filed against Stout were big contributors to his downfall, he said.

Other investigators have also been challenged by officials none too pleased with their findings.

Los Angeles attorney Leonard L. Gumport - a federally appointed bankruptcy examiner in 1987 who helped recover roughly $30 million in assets from Adnan Khashoggi, a Saudi Arabian oil billionaire, international arms dealer and prominent figure in the Iran-Contra scandal - was hired by the county in mid-2000 to investigate former top county officials who took bribes and kickbacks from contractors in exchange for lucrative billboard and trash-hauling contracts.

Since 2000, the county has authorized approximately $3.9 million for Gumport to investigate allegations of corruption and pursue litigation against those suspected of defrauding the public. He has so far won roughly $20 million in judgments - nearly $11 million of which is still owed to the county - from former county officials and contractors convicted of bribery and other charges.

In 2005, the county commissioned Gumport to conduct additional investigations regarding allegations of impropriety related to county land deals.

Gumport found that Jim Foster - who would later resign as chief of staff for former Supervisor Dennis Hansberger - had improperly purchased surplus county land through former Assemblyman Brett Granlund, a lobbyist and one-time friend.

Gumport also found that Granlund tried to influence the county's purchase of a private jail in Adelanto without indicating that that he worked for the jail's owner.

Bill Postmus, then chairman of the board, called the report "sensationalistic," and full of "hyperbole, loaded wording, and in some cases unsupported statements."

Fourth District Supervisor Gary Ovitt said the report's conclusions were overblown.

County Administrative Officer Mark Uffer, who directed Gumport to examine questions regarding the county's lease and purchase of the jail, said, "It was clear that Mr. Gumport had taken it upon himself to explore several unrelated issues outside of his areas of expertise" and that some information in the report "was superfluous and served to confuse the report to the point that it lost sight of its intended purpose."

Gumport declined to comment for this story.

More recently, at least one official is starting to cut into the work of former federal prosecutor John C. Hueston's 33-page report on cronyism and timecard fraud in the Assessor's Office.

Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt last month called into question portions of Hueston's report alleging that his office conducted campaign work on county time and that Postmus exerted his influence to intimidate challengers to Mitzelfelt, who in June 2008 won re-election to the seat he was appointed to in 2007 and which was once held by Postmus.

Mitzelfelt said he is unaware of any campaign activity on his behalf occurring on county time and the facts of the case would surface during the litigation process.

"The report gives the impression that there was a lot more political activity going on on my campaign than there really was," Mitzelfelt said.

While Mitzelfelt lauded Hueston's work in bringing forth the information needed for the county to take legal action against Postmus and his former staffers, he also said much of the report was filled with "a collection of opinions, and often conflicting ones."

Mitzelfelt's remarks followed a unanimous decision by the board to double the county's contract with Hueston so the attorney can lead a lawsuit against Postmus.

Those who follow corruption investigations say they aren't surprised when the investigators themselves are attacked.

"They want surgery where you remove the cancer without touching the other tissue," said Larry K. Gaines, chair of the criminal justice department at Cal State San Bernardino. "One of the things you have to understand is you're looking at a host of political elites up there that have a host of political agendas going on. By having outside investigators, it allows them the distance ... so they can maintain the status quo."

Hueston has not returned phone calls seeking comment, but one expert on government ethics issues says while everyone likes to be praised for their work, lawyers expect their findings sometimes will be met with harsh and public criticism from those who brought them in.

Still, the often hard-shelled investigators grow frustrated when their work is used as a springboard for politicking, said Jessica Levinson, director of political reform at the Center for Governmental Studies based in Los Angeles.

"No kind of attorney going in wants his work to be used as a public opinion ploy," Levinson said. "Their goal is bringing light to ethics issues."

In the end, Levinson said, it wearies the public and is a waste of taxpayer resources when officials do not take investigations seriously.

"Certainly it is a problem," Levinson said. "It's not unusual to have an expert look at (scandals) and get the public's support that you are doing something, then say the recommendations are not workable."

JOHN C. HUESTON

The Newport Beach-based attorney is a former federal prosecutor recognized for his role as lead prosecutor with the Enron Task Force. Named by California Lawyer magazine as a 2007 "California Attorney of the Year," Hueston in May issued a 33-page report on timecard fraud and cronyism in the San Bernardino County Assessor's Office that has led to a county lawsuit against former Assessor Bill Postmus and top staffers, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, improper expenditure of public funds and unjust enrichment.

MICHAEL RAMOS

The district attorney whose Public Integrity Unit is leading investigations into Postmus and former top staffers in the wake of allegations that they ran a political operation from the Assessor's Office. Prosecutors charged Postmus last week with grand theft, misappropriation of public money, perjury and drug possession. Postmus and others have claimed the investigation is politically motivated.

LEONARD L. GUMPORT

A Los Angeles-based attorney who has represented the county for the last decade in a lawsuit stemming from the biggest corruption scandal in county history. Gumport won roughly $20 million in judgments stemming from a 2000 lawsuit involving more than 20 defendants, including former top county officials and contractors convicted of bribery and other charges.

DENNIS STOUT

Elected to the District Attorney's Office in 1994, Stout prosecuted former Supervisor Jerry Eaves in connection with bribery scandals in the 1990s before the case was handed over to the state Attorney General's Office after it was discovered that Stout and two of his top aides discussed information about the investigation into Eaves with one of his political foes. Stout dropped out of the 2002 race for the office, which Ramos went on to win. Eaves pleaded guilty in 2004 to violating state conflict of interest laws.